17 Jul 13
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziI guess it might be seen as trying to shift the balance of power of the extreme right wing nutters, where if I could shake the foundations of someone as brain dead as RJ, perhaps I would have arguments that would reach those slightly less brain dead.
seriously, you are still surprised that he doesn't refute his opponents? that when he tries to reply, his posts reek of ignorance and mockery?
can't you find someone else to discuss spirituality other than this wacko? or is it the fact that he is so low on the intellectual ladder that he actually is the ground beneath it, and it makes you feel good ing for him to challenge you intellectually? are you disappointed and surprised he doesn't?
It really rattles me to the bone this fight in the courts about the attempt in the bible belt in the USA to force creationism to be taught along side evolution in a science class as if it were a science.
They have gone through court losses after loss and now have changed tactics, going after the 'freedom of expression' card in the courts.
They will not give up and I hope each one of us who are rational will fight it in his or her own way.
I think of the RJ thing as a test case.
My last argument I threw at him was of my own devising, the idea that if the age of the earth was only 6K years and you look at the moon you see literally millions of meteor or asteroid strikes yet in all the 6000 years of real recorded history there have been only a few recorded instances of strikes on the moon visible from earth. It would seem if the earth was only 6K years old, then either the strikes all happened 6K years ago or before people were around or if they were more linear in appearance there should be many more strikes visible today.
I also used a variation of that argument, where the moon is clearly cool enough on the surface that men can walk on it in more or less safe conditions, of course space suits necessary but at least the surface is cool enough that you don't need a foot of insulation to walk around on it.
So why isn't the moon red hot from all those literally millions of hits if the earth moon system is only 6K years old.
I am trying to find a formulation of those arguments that would hold up to real scrutiny so I use these on RJ as a test case.
What do you think of those arguments? Can I improve on them somehow?
17 Jul 13
Originally posted by stellspalfiei was discussing that the possibility of wife having hidden agenda, while fairly probable, need not and should not concern one. that is no way to live ones life. you should live the way it makes you happy. it is better to believe the wife is loving until proven otherwise, than to constantly live in doubt, that logically speaking, you have no irrefutable evidence of her love.
i was actually comparing aliens faking hydrogen with your assertion that aliens could be controlling a wife, not comparing them to a wife having hidden agendas.
aliens controlling things has zero evidence. a wife having hidden agendas is something that happens frequently (as does husbands with hidden agendas) so we do have a presidence and evidence ...[text shortened]... azy to believe them just because its written down, we should demand physical evidence and proof.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
17 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi'thats no way to live ones live'
i was discussing that the possibility of wife having hidden agenda, while fairly probable, need not and should not concern one. that is no way to live ones life. you should live the way it makes you happy. it is better to believe the wife is loving until proven otherwise, than to constantly live in doubt, that logically speaking, you have no irrefutable evidence of her love.
ahh, this is a different subject though. we need to live a happy life, if thinking a certain way makes our life better then great. but what we like to believe to make life easier in no way effects the truth. choosing to believe in god because it makes a person happier doesnt increase or decrease the possibility that god exists.
look at this way. i have evidence that my wife loves me. if i choose to believe that evidence, it wouldnt be an extraordinary claim and the odds are i can safely walk up and touch her boobs.
i have zero evidence that kate beckinsale loves me. if i choose to believe she does, it would be an extraordinary claim and the odds are that if i tried to touch her boobs i would be punched in the face and if i was the kinda guy that believed kate beckinsale loved me without evidence and tried to grope her. i would be locked up in a mental hospital.
17 Jul 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo if you found possible evidence that your wife was having an affair, would you choose not to look into it and try to life a happy life ignoring it, or would you want to know the truth? I know some people prefer not to know and that many people hide secrets in the belief (or at least that is the excuse) that the other person is better off not knowing. So where do you stand? Ignorance is bliss, but is it what you want?
i was discussing that the possibility of wife having hidden agenda, while fairly probable, need not and should not concern one. that is no way to live ones life. you should live the way it makes you happy. it is better to believe the wife is loving until proven otherwise, than to constantly live in doubt, that logically speaking, you have no irrefutable evidence of her love.
17 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have seen plenty of cases from the POV of both sexes where the spouse has an affair and the other half just tolerates it, reasoning that he or she comes home to ME.
So if you found possible evidence that your wife was having an affair, would you choose not to look into it and try to life a happy life ignoring it, or would you want to know the truth? I know some people prefer not to know and that many people hide secrets in the belief (or at least that is the excuse) that the other person is better off not knowing. So where do you stand? Ignorance is bliss, but is it what you want?
Don't know if *I* could tolerate that but some people clearly do.
17 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI am not talking about tolerating. I am talking about not wanting to know. Its not the same thing.
I have seen plenty of cases from the POV of both sexes where the spouse has an affair and the other half just tolerates it, reasoning that he or she comes home to ME.
Don't know if *I* could tolerate that but some people clearly do.
17 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonhouseno. you cannot. nothing you can do can change his stance. he has made up his mind, decided on a way to live and that's that. for him, it is more important to live according to a book thousands of years old, rather than figure out for himself what is right and wrong.
I guess it might be seen as trying to shift the balance of power of the extreme right wing nutters, where if I could shake the foundations of someone as brain dead as RJ, perhaps I would have arguments that would reach those slightly less brain dead.
It really rattles me to the bone this fight in the courts about the attempt in the bible belt in the USA ...[text shortened]... RJ as a test case.
What do you think of those arguments? Can I improve on them somehow?
don't you understand? nobody but the most retarded or most brainwashed can believe in a young earth. in the age of the internet, where we have access to all the knowledge of the human race, people like him choose to believe the likes of hovind rather than the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
nobody has change someone else's opinion over the internet. the best you can do is find someone to have an intelligent conversation with and pass the time in a fun manner if you like debating.
17 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadthat is the case of the rjhinds. he did found that his wife (genesis) is cheating on him, yet he decides to call all the detectives who witnessed genesis fukin liars. all the photographs the detectives took are fabrications.
So if you found possible evidence that your wife was having an affair, would you choose not to look into it and try to life a happy life ignoring it, or would you want to know the truth? I know some people prefer not to know and that many people hide secrets in the belief (or at least that is the excuse) that the other person is better off not knowing. So where do you stand? Ignorance is bliss, but is it what you want?
in other news, ignorance is indeed bliss, but what you are saying is no longer ignorance. after one is presented with proof that contradicts his world view and chooses to ignore that, he can no longer remain blissful ignorant. he knows the truth, he just acts against it, with no reason whatsoever.
as far as i understand the concept, a pet canary who doesn't see the door to its cage is blissfully ignorant. a pet canary who sees the door, but chooses to stay in the cage is a slave.
18 Jul 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziYour attempt to compare my wife with a Genesis that is cheating on me and I refuse to see it is ridiculous bull crap.
that is the case of the rjhinds. he did found that his wife (genesis) is cheating on him, yet he decides to call all the detectives who witnessed genesis fukin liars. all the photographs the detectives took are fabrications.
in other news, ignorance is indeed bliss, but what you are saying is no longer ignorance. after one is presented with proof tha ...[text shortened]... sfully ignorant. a pet canary who sees the door, but chooses to stay in the cage is a slave.
The Instructor
18 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziI know that. I just am fielding ideas that might sway less brain dead opponents. So what do you think about my argument on the moon's meteor/asteroid hits and how it would have played out if the Earth was really 6K years old?
no. you cannot. nothing you can do can change his stance. he has made up his mind, decided on a way to live and that's that. for him, it is more important to live according to a book thousands of years old, rather than figure out for himself what is right and wrong.
don't you understand? nobody but the most retarded or most brainwashed can believ ve an intelligent conversation with and pass the time in a fun manner if you like debating.
You are certainly right about young earthers, RJ not even bothering to TRY to answer my charge about the meteor strikes on the moon is a clear statement in of itself.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThe problem with your argument is that it only works against people
I know that. I just am fielding ideas that might sway less brain dead opponents. So what do you think about my argument on the moon's meteor/asteroid hits and how it would have played out if the Earth was really 6K years old?
You are certainly right about young earthers, RJ not even bothering to TRY to answer my charge about the meteor strikes on the moon is a clear statement in of itself.
who accept the laws of physics.
RJHinds doesn't.
God can wave his magic swinging cod and make anything happen.
So the response would be that god made the moon pre-impacted
with lots of craters because it looks pretty... or something.
If, like RJHinds, you allow magic then anything could be possible...
Which means that you can't explain anything, but they don't care about
that. They like being ignorant.
18 Jul 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziI notice you haven't answered my question. Are you for, or against ignorance? Given the opportunity to talk to the detectives, would you simply say you would rather not know assuming that you have no idea whether they found any evidence of your wife cheating on you.
in other news, ignorance is indeed bliss,
but what you are saying is no longer ignorance. after one is presented with proof that contradicts his world view and chooses to ignore that, he can no longer remain blissful ignorant. he knows the truth, he just acts against it, with no reason whatsoever.
My understanding is that you are a Christian. I would say that there can be no doubt that you are in the same boat as he is. You know the truth and wilfully act against it.